As an opportunist doctrine of the petty bourgeoisie it was ﬁrst encountered by Lenin and the Party

at the Second Congress of the RSDLP, in the period of Bolshevism’s emergence.

Since then, at various stages of history, the Communist Party has had to wage an unrelenting ﬁght with the utterly opportunist ideology and adventurist practices of Trotskyism. On the international scene Trotskyism has been and still is combated by other Marxist-Leninist Parties side by side with the CPSU.

The documents in this volume trace the struggle that Lenin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union waged against Trotskyism and give convincing evidence of the absolute superiority and the sweeping victory of the historical truth of Leninism over the false and venomous ideology and pernicious practices of Trotskyism.

This volume has ﬁve sections.

The ﬁrst consists of documents of the pre-revolutionary period. The earliest of these documents characterise the struggle waged against Trotskyism by Lenin and his supporters at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (1903), at which Trotsky made it quite plain that he represented the conciliatory, reformist trend in the European Social-Democratic movement and was an adversary of

Bolshevism.

At that Congress Lenin and his supporters emphatically rejected the views of the opportunists, Trotsky among them, about the special place occupied by the Bund, a Jewish petty-bourgeois nationalistic organisation, in the Party and their misinterpretation of the meaning of “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Trotsky vigorously backed the wording of the ﬁrst paragraph of the Party Rules as formulated by Martov, a wording which would have given unstable petty-bourgeois elements access to the Party. “Comrade Trotsky,” Lenin said at the Congress, “completely misinterpreted the main idea of my book, What Is To Be Done?” (see p. 24). Trotsky insisted that every striker should have the right to call himself a Party member, to which Lenin replied: “It would be better if ten who do work should not call themselves Party members (real workers don’t hunt after titles!) than that one who only talks should have the right and opportunity to be a Party member” (p. 26).

The Party’s split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks occurred at the Second Congress.

The course of events strikingly brought to the fore the substance of the disagreements between the Leninists, on the one hand, and the Mensheviks and Trotskyites, on the other. Led by Lenin, the Bolsheviks organised a close-knit revolutionary Party, which prepared and directed the socialist revolution, while the Mensheviks and Trotskyites clung to their reformism.

After the Second Congress Trotsky attacked its decisions. In a letter to Y. D. Stasova, F. V. Lengnik and others on October 14, 1904, Lenin wrote: “A new pamphlet by Trotsky came out recently. . . . The pamphlet is a pack of brazen lies, a distortion of the facts. . . . The Second Congress was, in his words, a reactionary attempt to consolidate sectarian methods of organisation, etc. The pamphlet is a slap in the face both for the present Editorial Board of the CO and for all Party workers” (p. 26).

During the ﬁrst Russian revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to ﬁght Trotsky over issues concerning the Party’s theory and tactics. In 1905 Trotsky sought to counter Lenin’s theory of the growth of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution with his own so-called theory of “permanent revolution”, which questioned the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution and denied the revolutionary potentialities of the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat.

In the period of reaction that followed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks fought on two fronts under incredibly difficult conditions: against the liquidators and the otzovists. Despite the declaration that they were “above factions”, Trotsky and his small band of supporters preached that it was imperative to reconcile the revolutionaries with the opportunists within the Party, giving the liberal-bourgeois argument that the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks did not represent two different political schools but were only two groups of Social-Democratic intellectuals fighting for influence over the “politically immature proletariat”. In a series of articles and letters Lenin exposed this approach of Trotsky to fundamental differences and his conciliatory attitudes and lack of principles. He wrote that “Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist. . . . He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists” (p. 37). Lenin regarded Trotsky and his group as the most harmful and dangerous of all the shades of Menshevism. “Trotsky and the ‘Trotskyites and conciliators’ like him are more pernicious than any liquidator; the convinced liquidators state their views bluntly, and it is easy for the workers to detect where they are wrong, whereas the Trotskys deceive the workers, cover up the evil, and make it impossible to expose the evil and to remedy it” (p. 72). Lenin denounced the odious role played by the Trotskyites and called Trotsky judas.

Lenin scathingly criticised Trotsky’s political platform during the First World War, calling it a variety of Kautskyism.* Trotsky, in effect, supported the theory of “ultra-imperialism” and repeated Kautsky’s thesis that war paralysed the revolutionary potentialities of the proletariat and, therefore, before thinking of revolution the working class had to secure peace. He rejected the Bolshevik slogan calling for the defeat of one’s own government in the imperialist war in favour of a chauvinistic slogan demanding “neither victory nor defeat”.

While giving verbal recognition to the theory that capitalism developed unevenly, Trotsky propounded the thesis that capitalist development was evening out and, on that basis, tried to prove that the socialist revolution could not be accomplished and that socialism could not be established in one country taken separately.

Lenin’s teaching that the socialist revolution could be carried out initially in a few or even in one capitalist country and that socialism could not triumph simultaneously in all the capitalist countries was directed, in particular, against the views that were being expounded by Trotsky, who held that national economies could not provide the foundation for the socialist revolution and that “it was quite hopeless to carry on a struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat in any country taken separately; the proletariat can establish its dictatorship only on the scale of the whole of Europe, i.e., in the form of a European United States” (Nashe Slovo, February 4, 1916). This was the same double-dyed opportunism resting on the “permanent revolution” theory.

The Trotskyites lost all vestige of influence in the working-class movement long before 1917. When Trotsky arrived in Petrograd in 1917 he had to affiliate himself with the so-called Mezhrayontsi, a Social-Democratic group that vacillated between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. In August 1917 the Mezhrayontsi declared they had no differences with the Bolsheviks and joined the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks). Trotsky and his supporters joined the Party with them. Upon joining the Bolsheviks many of the Mezhrayontsi broke with opportunism. But, as subsequent developments showed, for Trotsky and some of his supporters this was only a formality: they went on propounding their pernicious views, flouted discipline and undermined the Party’s ideological and organisational unity.

At the most crucial moment of the development of the socialist revolution—the period of preparation

and the actual accomplishing of the October armed uprising in Petrograd—Lenin and the Bolshevik

Party found they had once more to come to grips with Trotsky’s totally untenable, harmful and dangerous views. Trotsky insisted that the uprising should be postponed until the Second Congress

of Soviets. In practice, this meant wrecking the uprising, because the Socialist- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks could put off the date for the congress, thus giving the Provisional Government the possibility of massing its forces by that date and suppressing the uprising. Had it been accepted, this piece of adventurism might have been fatal. Lenin opportunely exposed Trotsky’s demagogic stand, which was calculated for effect, and proved that the Provisional Government had to be overthrown before the Congress of Soviets opened.

The second section covers the period from 1918 to 1922. The documents dating from this period trace the struggle that Lenin and the Bolshevik Party waged against Trotsky’s pseudo- revolutionary line, which inﬂicted enormous damage on the then young Soviet Republic at the time the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty was signed, and against his adventurist extremes during the years of the Civil War and foreign intervention. Much of the material in this section is drawn from Lenin’s works and from Party decisions exposing Trotsky’s open opposition to the Party in 1920 and 1921, during the debate of the question of the trade unions and during the transition to the New Economic Policy, when the question of preserving and consolidating the alliance between the working class and the peasants was of particular importance

The ﬁght for the Brest peace in 1918 was a ﬁght to preserve the Soviet Republic and strengthen the new system. The Soviet Republic was opposing the imperialist war and pressing for world peace. This struggle won massive support from the working people of the whole world for the Russian revolution.

Documents show that on the question of the Brest Peace Treaty Trotsky maintained an anti- Leninist

stand, criminally exposing the newly emerged Soviet Republic to mortal danger. As head of the Soviet delegation to the peace talks, he ignored the instructions of the Party Central Committee and the Soviet Government. At a crucial moment of the talks he declared that the Soviet Republic was unilaterally withdrawing from the war, announced that the Russian Army was being demobilised, and left Brest-Litovsk. This gave the German Command the pretext it desired for ending the armistice. “We can only be saved, in the true meaning of the word, by a European revolution,” he said (Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B), verbatim report, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1962, p. 65). The German Army mounted an offensive and occupied considerable territory. As a result, much harsher peace terms were put forward by the German Government. On account of Trotsky’s adventurism,

Lenin wrote, Soviet Russia signed “a much more humiliating peace, and the blame for this rests upon

those who refused to accept the former peace” (p. 139).

Though it was short-lived, the respite given by the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty was of immense signiﬁcance. It allowed the Soviet Republic to withdraw from the world war and prepare to repulse the foreign intervention and the internal counter-revolution.

The Civil War of 1918-1920 ended in victory for the Soviet Republic. The country embarked on economic rejuvenation and started healing the terrible wounds inﬂicted by the imperialist intervention and the whiteguard counter-revolution. The Party switched from war communism to the New Economic Policy as charted by Lenin, who pointed out that the prime task in the obtaining situation was to restore industry. This, he said, could not be achieved without ﬁrst securing an upsurge in agriculture and drawing the workers and their trade unions into active socialist construction. The way to resolve these problems was not through pressure and compulsion but through planned organisation, persuasion and the use of incentives.

At this critical period, Trotsky and other enemies of Leninism forced the Party to start a discussion on the question of the trade unions. At a time when every effort had to be directed towards the ﬁght against famine and economic dislocation, the attainment of a rise of agricultural production and the restoration of industry, the Party’s attention was diverted by this discussion. At a meeting of the RCP(B)* group at the Fifth All-Russia Trade Union Conference Trotsky insisted on “tightening up the screws” and “shaking up” the trade unions, on turning the trade unions forthwith into state agencies in order to replace persuasion by compulsion.

In a speech under the heading “The Trade Unions, the Current Situation and Trotsky’s Mistakes”, the

article “The Party Crisis”, the pamphlet Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and

the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin, and other works included in this volume Lenin denounced the

Trotskyites’ anti-Marxist approach to the question of the role and tasks of the trade unions in socialist construction. He showed that Trotsky’s line of turning the trade unions into part of the state machine would lead to their abolition and the undermining of the proletarian dictatorship. In effect, the issue in the trade union discussion forced on the Party by Trotsky was “the attitude to the peasants, who had risen against war communism, the attitude to the non-Party mass of workers, generally the Party’s attitude to the masses at a time when the Civil War had ended” (p. 247).

In the discussion the opposition was overwhelmingly defeated in all the main Party organisations. The Party rallied round Lenin, supporting his platform and rejecting the line propounded by the Trotsky faction and other opposition groups.

The results of this discussion were summed up by the Tenth Party Congress (March 1921), whose decisions deﬁned the role and tasks of the trade unions under the dictatorship of the proletariat. At this Congress Lenin again exposed the anti-Party substance of the policy pursued by the Trotskyites and other opposition groups. On his proposal the Congress passed a decision on Party unity, which ﬁrmly laid down that all factions were to be disbanded immediately and that Party organisations should henceforth prohibit all factional action. “Non-fulﬁlment of this decision of the Congress,” it was stated, “shall be followed by unconditional and immediate expulsion from the Party” (p. 230).

The resolutions adopted by Party organs on the struggle against Trotskyism in 1923-1925 are to be

found in the third section of this volume.

At a joint plenary meeting with representatives of ten of the largest Party organisations in October 1923, the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission discussed the situation in the Party and condemned Trotsky’s anti-Party letter and the Statement of 46 concocted by the Trotskyites and other opposition groups: “The plenary meetings of the CC, the CCC and representatives of 10 Party organisations unequivocally condemn the Statement of 46 as a step in factional and divisive politics. . . . This Statement threatens to embroil the entire Party in an inner- Party struggle during the next few months and thereby weaken the Party at a most crucial moment to the destinies of the international revolution” (p. 236).

In a pamphlet entitled The New Line, Trotsky accused the Party leadership of degeneration and counterposed young people, particularly students, to veteran Bolsheviks. To ﬂatter young people, he

called them the “barometer of the Party”.

The Thirteenth Conference of the RCP(B), held in January 1924, passed a resolution— “Results of the Discussion and the Petty-Bourgeois Deviation in the Party”—which sharply condemned the factional activities of Trotsky and his supporters and stated that “the present opposition is not only an

attempt to revise Bolshevism, not only a ﬂagrant departure from Leninism but patently a petty-bourgeois deviation. There is no doubt whatever that this opposition objectively mirrors the pressure of the petty-bourgeoisie on the position of the proletarian Party and its policy” (p.1).

This resolution was endorsed by the Thirteenth Congress of the RCP(B).In the autumn of 1924, after Lenin’s death, Trotsky published an article in which he extolled his own role in the revolution, brought out his old idea of “permanent revolution” and again argued that hostile collisions were inevitable between the proletarian vanguard and the broad peasant masses.

At a plenary meeting on January 17-20, 1925 the Central Committee of the RCP(B) qualiﬁed Trotsky’s unceasing attacks on Bolshevism as an attempt to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism. By decision of this plenary meeting Trotsky was removed from the ofﬁce of Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR. He was “warned in the most emphatic terms that membership of the Bolshevik Party demands real, not verbal, subordination to Party discipline and total and unconditional renunciation of any attacks on the ideals of Leninism” (p. 254).

A New Opposition led by Zinoviev and Kamenev attacked the Leninist line at the Fourteenth Party Congress, which was convened at the close of December 1925. Only recently Zinoviev and Kamenev had been opposed to the Trotskyites, but then they themselves sank to the positions of Trotskyism.

After a crushing defeat at the Fourteenth Congress, the New Opposition openly embraced Trotskyism. An anti-Party opposition bloc, which was joined by the remnants of other opposition groups, smashed by the Party, now took shape.

The fourth section offers documents tracing the Party’s struggle against Trotskyism in 1926 and 1927.

In the autumn of 1926 the leaders of the Trotskyite bloc made an open anti-Party sally, speaking at Party meetings at the Aviapribor Works in Moscow and the Putilov Works in Leningrad, where theydemanded a discussion of their anti-Leninist platform. The Communist workers sharply denounced them and made them leave these meetings. This induced them to beat a retreat: they sent a statement to the Central Committee in which they hypocritically recanted their errors. Actually, they formed an illegal party of their own and held secret meetings, at which they discussed their factional

platform and the tactics to be adopted against the Communist Party.

The Fifteenth All-Union Party Conference, held in October-November 1926, characterised the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition as a Menshevik deviation in the Party and warned them that further evolution towards Menshevism would lead to their expulsion from the Party. The conference called on all Communists to adopt a determined stand against the opposition bloc.

The Seventh Extended Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive, held shortly afterwards, endorsed the Fifteenth Party Conference resolution on the opposition bloc and made it incumbent on Communist parties to put down the attempts of the Trotskyites to split the international communist movement.

The Trotskyites did not cease their anti-Party activities despite their defeat in the Party, the working class and the international communist movement. They took advantage of the difficulties at home and also the deterioration of the Soviet Union’s international position to come forward with their so-called “platform of 83”, in which they renewed their slander against the Party. They claimed that the Party and the Soviet Government were out to abolish the monopoly of foreign trade and grant political rights to the kulaks. A huge edition of this “platform” was printed at an underground printshop and circulated among Party members and non-Party people.

An end had to be put to this anti-Party activity. Convened in October 1927, a joint plenary meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission exposed the anti-Leninist essence of the opposition platform and expelled Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Central Committee for their factional activities against the Party and its unity. At this plenary meeting it was decided to submit all the materials on the divisive activities of the Trotsky opposition for consideration by theFifteenth Congress of the Communist Party.

During the Party discussion that preceded the Fifteenth Congress, 724,000 members voted in favour

of the Central Committee’s Leninist policy, while the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc received only 4,000 votes, i.e., half of one per cent of the participants in this discussion. This was a staggering defeat for the opposition.

It was now obvious that the Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc had suffered political bankruptcy and was isolated from the Party masses. It, therefore, went over from factional activity within the Party to an anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary struggle.

After their total defeat in the Party organisations, the opposition members tried to appeal to the non-Party masses in the hope of making them rise against the Communist Party and the Soviet power.

They held their illegal conferences at private homes in Moscow and Leningrad, working out a plan of action for the coming demonstration on November 7. They decided to speak on that day, shout their

slogans and display the portraits of their leaders. On November 4 the Trotskyites forced their way into the Higher Technical School in Moscow and held a factional meeting. In some towns they printed anti-Soviet leaﬂets illegally, scattering them at factories and pasting them on fences and posts.

On the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution they tried to organise anti-Soviet actions in Moscow and Leningrad, but were swept off the streets by demonstrations of working people, who expressed their complete conﬁdence in the Communist Party and the Soviet Government.

The November 7 actions of the opposition showed that it had become a counter-revolutionary force

openly hostile to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Having ﬂouted all the standards of Party life, the Trotskyites now began to violate state laws, demonstrating their anti-Soviet, anti-popular aspirations.

On November 14, 1927, in fulﬁlment of the will of the Party masses, the Central Committee and the

Central Control Commission expelled Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Party; other members of their

group were removed from the CC and the CCC.

The defeat of Trotskyism was completed by the Fifteenth Party Congress (December 1927). It found

that the opposition had ideologically broken with Leninism, degenerated into a Menshevik group, taken the road of capitulation to the international and internal bourgeoisie and become a weapon against the proletarian dictatorship. It, therefore, endorsed the decision of the CC and CCC to expel Trotsky and Zinoviev, and expelled another 75 members of their group. It instructed Party organisations to purge their ranks of patently incorrigible Trotskyites and institute measures to inﬂuence the rank-and-ﬁle members of the opposition ideologically in order to persuade them to abandon Trotskyite views and go over to the positions of Leninism.

Party unity is dealt with in the ﬁfth section, which consists of resolutions adopted by local Party organisations on the struggle against Trotskyism (1923-1927).

After the Fifteenth Congress many rank-and-ﬁle members of the opposition bloc realised their delusions, renounced Trotskyism and were re-established as Party members. However, spurred by his

implacable enmity for Leninism, Trotsky did not down arms, with the result that in 1929 he was expelled from the Soviet Union. The Leninist Party thus ﬁnally smashed the Trotsky opposition ideologically and organisationally.

However, under various guises Trotskyite ideology continues to harm the liberation movement.

Present-day Trotskyism has many aspects. Following the example of Trotsky, its spiritual father, it is capable of acquiring any hue and adapting itself to any revolutionary trend in order to blow it up from within.

The problem of the unity and cohesion of the anti-imperialist forces, above all, of the communist

and working-class movement, received considerable attention at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, which was held in Moscow in March-April 1971. It was noted that recent years had witnessed an animation of Right and “Left” opportunism and violent attacks by various splinter groups on Marxism-Leninism as the ideological and theoretical guideline of the communist movement. Modern Trotskyism, it was pointed out, had actively aligned itself with these splinter groups, which the present Chinese leadership was setting up in various countries. Speaking from the congress rostrum the delegates and the numerous foreign guests stressed their determination to wage a tireless ﬁght against all these attacks, including the assaults of the Trotskyites, and work to strengthen the unity and solidarity of the communist and working-class movement on the unshakable foundation of the

Marxist-Leninist teaching.

At various stages Trotskyism united and headed different opportunist trends. This was made possible

by Trotskyism’s ability to use ultra-revolutionary verbiage to mask its opportunist concepts and thereby tempt and attract people with little experience of politics and no or inadequate knowledge of Marxist-Leninist theory. Delusions of a Trotskyite hue sometimes disorient part of the revolutionary-minded youth, who, on account of their inexperience, are unable to ﬁnd the road to genuinely revolutionary theory, to communist ideology.

Modern Trotskyism seeks to emasculate Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary content, helps the agents of imperialism to ﬁght the Marxist-Leninist teaching and resorts to ultra- revolutionary clamour in an effort to sow the poisonous seeds of adventurism among young people.

In the capitalist countries, the radical, democratic youth are looking for a way out of oppression and exploitation and seeking the means of ﬁghting social injustice. By their own reformist practices most of the Socialist and Social-Democratic parties are increasingly demonstrating that they are spokesmen of the capitalist system. The ﬁnest and most politically conscious young people are adopting Marxism-Leninism, which gives them a wider political horizon, indicates effective ways of ﬁghting imperialism and shows them the prospects for the triumph of the socialist revolution.

There is no doubt that the temporary attraction that a section of the young people in the capitalist countries has for the modern Trotskyite slogans with their tub-thumping and pseudo- revolutionary veneer will pass. And there is no doubt that in the course of the revolutionary struggle led by the Communist and Workers’ Parties, who are armed with the great teaching of Marxism- Leninism, Trotskyite ideology with its opportunism and adventurism will be exposed again and again and swept away, as has repeatedly been the case in the past. The viability and invincibility of Marxism-Leninism are shown by the documents in this volume tracing the struggle the Communist Party and the working people of the Soviet Union waged against the petty-bourgeois anti-Leninist ideology and practice of Trotskyism.

The addenda include decisions of the Communist International and resolutions adopted by the trade

unions against Trotskyism.

This volume was compiled by B. S. Ulasov and I. P. Ganenko under the direction of A. A. Solovyov.

SPEECHES ON WAR AND PEACE AT A MEETING OF THE CC OF THE RSDLP(B), JANUARY 11 (24), 1918, Minutes

[January 29 (February 11), 1918]

Use all methods available to you to cancel today’s telegram on peace and general demobilisation of
the armies on all fronts. By order of Lenin.89

V. I. Lenin, Collected Works,
Vol. 44, p. 60

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HEADQUARTERS OF THE SUPREME COMMANDER- IN-CHIEF,

[January 30 (February 12), 1918]

Notify all army commissars and Bonch-Bruyevich that all telegrams signed by Trotsky and Krylenko on demobilisation of the army are to be held up. We cannot give you the peace terms, since peace really has not yet been concluded. Please hold up all telegrams reporting peace until you receive special permission.

TO THE CC, RCP
“Comrade Trotsky is mistaken: here there are neither whims, nor mischief, nor caprice, nor
confusion, nor desperation, nor any “element” of these pleasant qualities (which Trotsky castigates
with such terrible irony).111 What there is, is what Trotsky ignores, namely, that the majority of
the CC is convinced that General Headquarters is a “den”, that all is not well at Headquarters,
and in seeking a serious improvement, in seeking ways for a radical change it has taken a deﬁnite
step. That is all.

Lenin

Moscow, 17 /VI, 1919
V. I. Lenin, Collected Works,
Vol. 44, p. 255

TELEGRAM TO L. D. TROTSKY, L. P. SEREBRYAKOV, M. M. LASHEVICH,

Trotsky
Serebryakov
Lashevich
[September 6, 1919]

The Politbureau of the CC, after discussing the telegram from Trotsky, Serebryakov and Lashevich, endorsed the reply of the Commander-in-Chief and expresses surprise at attempts to revise the adopted basic strategic plan.

ONCE AGAIN ON THE TRADE UNIONS, THE CURRENT SITUATION AND THE MISTAKES OF COMRADES TROTSKY AND BUKHARIN The Danger of Factional Pronouncement to the Party Formal Democracy and the Revolutionary Interest The Political Danger of Splits in the Trade Union Movement Disagreements on Principle Politics and Economics. Dialectics and Eclecticism Dialectics and Eclecticism. “School” and “Apparatus” Conclusion

JOINT PLENARY MEETING OF THE CC AND CCC CPSU(B), October 23 and 26, 1926 Resolution “On the Situation in the Party in Connection with the Factional Activities and Violation of Party Discipline by Some CC Members”

FIFTEENTH CONFERENCE OF THE CPSU(B), Moscow, October 26-November 3, 1926 Resolution “On the Opposition Bloc in the CPSU(B)” I. The “New Opposition’s” Switch to Trotskyism on the Basic Question of the Nature and Prospects of Our Revolution II. Practical Platform of the Opposition Bloc III. The “Revolutionary” Words and Opportunist Actions of the Opposition Bloc IV. Conclusions

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU(B), Moscow, December 2-19, 1927 From the Resolution “On the Report of the Central Committee” From the Resolution “On the Report of the CPSU(B) Delegation in the Comintern Executive” On the Opposition

RESOLUTIONS OF LOCAL PARTY ORGANISATIONS ON THE STRUGGLE AGAINST TROTSKYISM

RESOLUTION OF A GENERAL MEETING OF WORKER MEMBERS AND CANDIDATE MEMBERS OF THE PARTY OF THE IVANOVO-VOZNESENSK TOWN DISTRICT ON THE QUESTION OF INNER-PARTY DEMOCRACY, December 19, 1928

From THE RESOLUTION OF A GENERAL MEETING OF RCP(B) CELL BUREAUS AND FUNCTIONARIES OF THE KHARKOV PARTY ORGANISATION ON THE QUESTION OF PARTY DEVELOPMENT, December 19, 1923

From THE RESOLUTION OF AN EXTENDED PLENARY MEETING OF THE BAKHMUTSKY AREA PARTY COMMITTEE ON THE SITUATION IN THE PARTY AND ON THE IMMEDIATE TASKS OF PARTY WORK IN THE DONBAS, Decernber1923

RESOLUTIONS OF PETROGRAD PARTY ORGANISATIONS ON QUESTIONS OF INNER-PARTY DEMOCRACY, January 1924 Samoilova Factory 3rd and 4th Armoured Car Divisions

From THE RESOLUTION OF THE THIRTEENTH CONFERENCE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIKS) OF BYELORUSSIA ON THE QUESTION OF PARTY ORGANISATION, May 14, 1924

From THE RESOLUTION OF A PLENARY MEETING OF THE MOSCOWNARVA DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), LENINGRAD, JOINTLY WITH PARTY FUNCTIONARIES, November 1924

RESOLUTION OF AN EXTENDED PLENARY MEETING OF THE VYBORG DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), LENINGRAD, November 1924

RESOLUTION OF AN EXTENDED PLENARY MEETING OF THE PARTY COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, LENINGRAD, JOINTLY WITH PARTY COLLECTIVE AND SHOP ORGANISERS, November 1924

MESSAGE OF GREETINGS FROM THE TENTH ORENBURG GUBERNIA CONFERENCE OF THE RCP(B) TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RUSSIAN COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIKS), December 7, 1924

RESOLUTION OF THE FIFTH PARTY CONFERENCE OF THE KRASNAYA PRESNYA DISTRICT. MOSCOW, ON THE REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), December 13, 1924

RESOLUTION OF THE FOURTH PARTY CONFERENCE OF THE ROGOZHSKY-SIMONOVSKY DISTRICT, MOSCOW, ON M. V. FRUNZE’S REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), December 15, 1924

From THE RESOLUTION OF THE FOURTH PARTY CONFERENCE OF THE BAUMANSKY DISTRICT, MOSCOW, ON THE REPORT OF THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), December 19, 1924

From THE RESOLUTION OF THE THIRD PARTY CONFERENCE OF THE ZAMOSKVORECHYE DISTRICT, MOSCOW, ON M. I. KALININ’S REPORT ON

THE WORK OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), December 20, 1924

From THE RESOLUTION OF THE EIGHTEENTH NOVGOROD GUBERNIA CONFERENCE OF THE RCP(B), December 1924 I. The Strengthening of Leninism

RESOLUTION OF A MEETING OF THE PARTY CELL AT THE TRYOKHGORNAYA TEXTILE MILL, KRASNAYA PRESNYA DISTRICT, MOSCOW, ON THE REPORT OF THE KRASNAYA PRESNYA DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B), 1924

From THE RESOLUTION OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIKS) OF THE UKRAINE ON THE REPORTS OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP AND THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CP(B)U, Kharkov, December 6-12, 1925

RESOLUTION OF A MEETING OF THE PARTY ORGANISATION AT THE KRASNY PUTILOVETS WORKS, LENINGRAD, APPROVING THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE AND THE CENTRAL CONTROL COMMISSION OF THE CPSU(B) ON THE EXPULSION OF TROTSKY AND ZINOVIEV FROM THE PARTY, November 16, 1927

RESOLUTION OF A PARTY AND KOMSOMOL MEETING AT THE FIRST OILFIELD, SURAKHAN DISTRICT, BAKU, ON THE RESULTS OF THE OCTOBER JOINT PLENARY MEETING OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE AND CENTRAL CONTROL COMMISSION OF THE CPSU(B) AND THE DEMAND TO EXPEL THE OPPOSITIONISTS FROM THE PARTY, November 16, 1927

MESSAGE OF GREETINGS OF THE WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE HAMMER AND SICKLE WORKS, MOSCOW, TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU(B) ON THE OCCASION OF THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GREAT OCTOBER SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, November 25, 1927

From THE MESSAGE OF GREETINGS OF THE MAKEYEVKA FACTORY WORKERS TO THE FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU(B), December 2, 1927

RESULTS OF THE PRE-CONGRESS DISCUSSION IN THE CPSU(B)

ADDENDA DECISIONS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL IN SUPPORT OF THE CPSU AGAINST TROTSKYISM

RESOLUTION ON THE RUSSIAN QUESTION (Adopted by the Fifth Comintern Congress, 1924)

RESOLUTION ON THE DISCUSSION IN THE RUSSIAN COMMUNIST PARTY (Adopted at the Fifth Extended Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive, 1925)

ON THE STATEMENTS OF TROTSKY AND VUYOVICH AT A PLENARY MEETING OF THE ECCI (Adopted at the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive, 1927)

ON THE TROTSKYITE OPPOSITION (Adopted at the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive, 1928)

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY TRADE UNION ORGANISATIONS ON THE STRUGGLE AGAINST TROTSKYISM IN THE TRADE UNIONS

From THE REPLY OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE CC OF THE METAL-WORKERS’ TRADE UNION TO A LETTER OF THE LEADERS OF THE “NEW OPPOSITION” OF JUNE 29, 1927. Our Reply to Yevdokimov, Zinoviev and Trotsky. July 13, 1927

DECISION OF THE CC OF THE TEXTILE WORKERS’ TRADE UNION IN SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE METALWORKERS’ CC TO THE LEADERS OF THE “NEW OPPOSITION”, July 23, 1927

LETTER OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE CC OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY WORKERS’ TRADE UNION TO THE METALWORKERS’ CC IN SUPPORT AND APPROVAL, OF THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE METALWORKERS’ CC TO THE LEADERS OF THE “NEW OPPOSITION”, July 29, 1927

DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE CC OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY WORKERS’ TRADE UNION IN SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE METALWORKERS’ CC TO THE LEADERS OF THE “NEW OPPOSITION”, August 9, 1927

DECISION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CPSU(B) GROUP IN THE CC OF THE TANNERS’ TRADE UNION IN SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE METALWORKERS’ CC TO THE LEADERS OF THE “NEW OPPOSITION”, August 9, 1927

From THE DECISION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CPSU(B) GROUP AT THE EXTRAORDINARY SIXTH PLENARY MEETING OF THE CC OF THE BUILDING WORKERS’ TRADE UNION IN SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE LETTER OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE METALWORKERS’ CC TO THE LEADERS OF THE “NEW OPPOSITION”, August 9, 1927